WPT Championship Event hand

[chuddo]

[ QUOTE ]

So you think both these things can be true a) You should fold top 2 pair and b) a big draw would not go all-in because of a lack of folding equity?

[/ QUOTE ]

not really contradicting myself i don't think. villian doesn't know he isn't up against a non-set hand, and it is possible that he is, and that a number of people wouldn't fold top-two in this spot, which is another possible hand. understand?

[tpir90036]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, I have learned something from this thread. Semibluffing all-in is a huge winner against the typical small-winner straightforward playing internet tourney player. Against big fish or tourney pros, I'm still not sure.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, I am certainly not a tourney pro.... and I said call... so I guess that leaves me in the <°\\\>< category. It also might explain why I am not an internet tourney winner.

Also, It has been covered that a set seems unlikely given the play thus far from a good player. But in order to make a semi-bluff like this more effective shouldn't the villain theoretically be playing a set like this once in a while? Or is the fear of that hand enough to blind someone from calling even though the betting might not point in that direction?

[Paluka]

[ QUOTE ]
But in order to make a semi-bluff like this more effective shouldn't the villain thoretically be playing a set like this once in a while?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think so, for 2 reasons: a) a situation like this just isn't going to come up that often b) I think checking the set on the flop is quite a large mistake.

[fnord_too]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, It has been covered that a set seems unlikely given the play thus far from a good player.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that has been established at all. The NL ring game players who have posted here (and in the mid/high NL forum) have all said fold as far as I can tell. Deep stack NL is extremely different than the short stack NL you normally play in tournies. I sure as hell don't have a good handle on it, but I don't think it is clear that a set is unlikely.

Also, I completely disagree with the idea that deep stacks make a set less likely, I think they make it much more likely. Your point about having to play sets (including the nuts) this way some times if you are going to semi bluff is quite correct I think (assuming your opponents are going to have a lot of hands against you over your poker life or you have a reputation).

[tpir90036]

I definitely agree with "b". "a" had not occurred to me for whatever reason. Good thread. Curious to hear what the results are. If I had to bet on it I would say all-in dude picked up a big draw on the turn and saw a ton of chips in the pot and went for them.

[fnord_too]

[ QUOTE ]
I think checking the set on the flop is quite a large mistake.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think checking 55 or 66 on this flop is a mistake, but can you explain why checking top set down to queens (queens because a set of queens can still be the nuts on the river) is a big mistake with stacks this deep? Here is my reasoning on why it is not:

The deep stacks greatly increase implied odds, so you can afford to play for those rare parlays where you make the nuts (or almost definitely best hand) and your opponent makes a very strong hand if you expect to stack him in those instances. In this case, you have 4 opponents who can catch a strong hand.

You don't give up too much when you miss the parlay because many times you will still end up getting some value out of the best hand or losing a smallish pot with a good hand, either by calling small bets or folding to action when a scare card comes. So you may give up a some on the hands you win anyway, and you may end up not taking down some small pots that you otherwise would have.

[tpir90036]

The point being covered by a couple of people does not mean that a majority of the posters agree with it. And while I respect the opinions of the mid/high posters... there is no magical formula for playing top two with a deep stack. Given a hand range from the provided info and betting thus far I think the dude picked up a huge draw and is going for it. So I would call. Could he have a set that he played like that? Sure. I included KK, QQ, 66 and 55 in my original post.... but I think those are not as likely as some other holdings that we are currently ahead of. And if he does have a set? *shrug* Try to river a king or a queen I guess.

I agree 100% that deep stack NL is very, very different. In fact, I have almost zero experience playing a stack that deep. However, it would seem that the tourney pros feed on this fear people have of going broke early on and use it to run up a bunch of chips right out of the gate.

As an aside, I wonder how many people would fold bottom set given this exact same sequence of events?

[Paluka]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think checking the set on the flop is quite a large mistake.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think checking 55 or 66 on this flop is a mistake, but can you explain why checking top set down to queens (queens because a set of queens can still be the nuts on the river) is a big mistake with stacks this deep? Here is my reasoning on why it is not:

The deep stacks greatly increase implied odds, so you can afford to play for those rare parlays where you make the nuts (or almost definitely best hand) and your opponent makes a very strong hand if you expect to stack him in those instances. In this case, you have 4 opponents who can catch a strong hand.

You don't give up too much when you miss the parlay because many times you will still end up getting some value out of the best hand or losing a smallish pot with a good hand, either by calling small bets or folding to action when a scare card comes. So you may give up a some on the hands you win anyway, and you may end up not taking down some small pots that you otherwise would have.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with a lot of this post. You shouldn't be playing KK and QQ in order to chase implied odds on unlikely parlays. That is something you do with 45s.

[Paluka]

[ QUOTE ]
As an aside, I wonder how many people would fold bottom set given this exact same sequence of events?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, if I give the guy 55 instead of KQ I bet more people call, even though it is probably a worse call because a set of kings or queens is much more likely now.

[bugstud]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As an aside, I wonder how many people would fold bottom set given this exact same sequence of events?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, if I give the guy 55 instead of KQ I bet more people call, even though it is probably a worse call because a set of kings or queens is much more likely now.

[/ QUOTE ]

pretty funny, isn't it.